Show of Hands

Cool it, buddy, u don't even have a state capital!

I would only approve if every cult group could put their devotional icons on my state capital's lawn. Americans came here for freedom to believe or not believe, so if any religious group or cult can put their icons on government land they should all be able to do it. All or none.

You don't put the baby figure out until Christmas. And if you want to really get picky, the wisrmen should't get there until January.

Not really, but those this have no place on government property.

Exactly.

I wouldn't be offended personally as a non-Christian but I don't think religious scenes have any business on public/government property. Put the biggest baby Jesus on your front lawn if you want, just not in public areas!

I'm not even Christian and it doesn't bother me. Let's be honest, Christmas has become a Secular holiday.

Sorry about that its the smoking thing. I'm feeling much better now.

I think when people collectively believe in ancient mythology to that degree it can't end up good for humanity.
As for my 8 posts its not even my record I think.

I think history has been polluted with ultra religious,extremist influence. Do you believe he was born of a virgin or was a god? In a thousand years they may be saying the same things about Tom cruise. Scientology may replace Christianity. Neither is correct.

Clearly this is a Violation of Separation of Church & State... Period
Rationalize all you want..

Some people wait until Christmas Eve to put him in.

I'm going to paint the skin on them brown and put them back. More historically accurate.

I think people are stealing them. The pile of little plastic babies in my garage would attest to that.

Random thought-the few nativity scenes I have seen this season are all missing baby Jesus.

Does it matter? It not as though the govt is forcing you to go to church or something like that. I wouldn't care if it was a giant menorah or something like that. It's not actually offensive, people are just looking to make a scene. Grow up :(

I take you're not

I wouldn't ;)

He's considered the greatest historian of his time. He specifically mentions the crucifixion of Christ and the increased following that He received after his death. There's absolutely no reason for him to make it up. His other recordings aren't questioned either.

I hold to the accounts of Tacitus. There were others who historically wrote of Christ as well, however he is the most reliable in reputation alone. He was a Senator, someone with means in that time and access to records of information. His writings are completely unbiased.

Remember, we're discussing whether or not Jesus of Nazareth historically existed, not whether or not the account in the Bible is true. Finding physical evidence for the existence of a specific human in that era is nearly impossible. Most "dwellings or works of carpentry" would rot quite quickly, no?

8 posts?!? Lol you're gonna make Tony give us post reply limits now... Lmao

You're starting with the assumption that you're right to prove we're wrong...

Jesus if he did exist was just a wandering preacher who probably suffered from a mental disorder and believed he was the son of a god. Not proof that he actually was by any stretch. I read up on Tacitus and his accounts of chrestus and am not yet convinced of its validity.

one can argue that many of these writings come from fraud or interpolations, the information and dates show that even if these sources did not come from interpolations, they could still not serve as reliable evidence for a historical Jesus, simply because all sources about Jesus derive from hearsay.

Devastating to historians, there occurs not a single contemporary writing that mentions Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings.

No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus; no artifacts, dwelling, works of carpentry, or self-written manuscripts. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing Jesus.

The whole story is just a legendary tale. And we know how accurate legends can be. I stand by the statement that many people admit. He was not written about till he was long gone from this earth if he existed at all.

The writers if the gospel were 100% correct on everything? And if so the bible is correct as to its authenticity. All things being equal what is the more rational explanation of these fantastic tales?

Capacity the church claims. If he did exist what is more plausible, that he was the son of a god or that he was just a garden variety nutjob? Did he walk on water and was resurrected? Turn water into wine? Can you rationally say he was born of a virgin?

I'm not under the impression your religious because you seem more sensible than the regular lunatics. The fact is you can't trust a lot of the historical documents because they were mostly written and then changed repeatedly by biased historians. I don't believe he existed, at least not in the

Unless they had room for other holiday displays, and allowed groups to use them, I would be disappointed at the selectivity of using public ground for a Christian display.

I don't care

I'm Jewish, there's no Menorah in our township; but, there are Christmas trees and Nativity displays. I'm not offended. I'm sure that if I spoke to our Mayor, we'd have both next year.

Third, there are sermons of his written down. Again, you choose to believe that they are not a valid source of information. But they are there.

Second, I never said people were illiterate. I said everyone didn't have pen and paper lying around like we do today. Obviously they were well beyond cavemen drawings. You're still saying no one wrote his name anywhere. So the source I cited previously is invalid? Please explain INTELLIGENTLY why...

Oh, shady, this is why we have so much trouble. You don't pay attention to what I actually write. First, I never said I was or was not religious. I pointed out in an earlier comment that I had said nothing one way or the other, so someone can't use say that I'm "religious" just because I disagree.

If Jesus did a tenth of what he is alleged to have done I guarantee someone would have at least carved or written his name somewhere. Maybe after all those amazing sermons he was supposed to have given?

Ohh, and early humans couldn't read of write but they did manage to keep some records( cave paintings). Did anyone even try to scratch his name in a rock or something? To say ppl were too illiterate to keep records isn't a good point. Humans have allways found a way to keep some records.

I still think there's no way to be 100% sure he did exist and I think you know that. Are you using Pascal's wager? Hedging your bets? You stated earlier your not a a religious person so I'm trying to figure your angle on this.

I am as pious in my faith as humanly possible.
That said, Nativity scenes are not even very 'Christian' in origin.
Still, they don't offend me... nor do the gigantic naked statues I see near Music Row here in Nashville every day.
Lighten up, folks. You can only be offended if you allow it.

If I were called as an expert witness (for which I would not qualify), I would use extra biblical sources such as Tacitus. A noted historian in the time of Jesus who makes mention of him several times. Interestingly, it's mostly recording reports of Jesus' resurrection.

That's more of my point. Regardless of whether or not you believe the Bible to be an accurate portrayal, Jesus did exist. No one can testify in court to anything that they have not personally been a witness to. Otherwise, it's hearsay. :)

I would argue with the way these gospels were written(with much mythology and folklore) that the more logical answer is at least that if he existed he was nothing like the bible said. He was just some poor crucified sap at most. Probably just a thief.

Is it possible in any way ( since you went with a court theme earlier if i put you under oath) that he was made up? Remember you're under oath!! Is it possible if even to a small degree?

Is it not my choice to believe in God or not believe in God? I can't believe you're still struggling with something so simple.

Little miss assuming, I never said that I was religious at all! You just think because I don't agree with your poor understanding of the human will to be able to choose what they believe and what they don't that makes me religious? No, it makes me anti ignorance.

I think you're confusing choosing with guessing. I never claimed that you wouldn't gather information before making your choice. However once you've gathered that information, you choose what you will believe.

My phone doesn't get updates; therefore, I do not have any new changes. Either way choosing to accept a lie is illogical when you know it's a lie.

I'm done here. I'm wasting my time.

you to believe them over the other person. You hear both arguments. Based on the evidence presented, you choose which one you believe.